Carter: On second thought, maybe my Bush-bashing comments were “careless”

posted at 9:53 am on May 21, 2007 by Allahpundit

Duly noted: when he called this the worst administration in history, he didn’t mean it’s the worst administration in, you know, history.

The irony is, this isn’t a week where conservatives were inclined to disagree with him.

Interviewed on the TODAY Show about the comments, Carter said, “I they were maybe careless or misinterpreted.” He said he “certainly was not talking personally about any president.”

When pressed by NBC’s Meredith Vieira as to whether he was saying his remarks were careless or reckless, the former president said, “I think they were, yes, because they were interpreted as comparing this whole administration to all other administrations.”

Carter said he was answering a question about the foreign policy of former President Richard Nixon, as compared with that of the current administration. He said he wasn’t comparing the Bush administration with all those through American history. But in comparison to Nixon’s, the Bush administration’s foreign policy “was much worse,” Carter said.

Never mind his Bush-bashing. A “Bush/Carter: who’s worse?” debate does us no favors considering Jimmeh’s almost 30 years removed from office while our guy’s still there. Besides, the real debate, if the Iraqis can’t get it together, will end up being over which of them did more ultimately to expand Iranian influence. More offensive were Carter’s comments about Blair: “Abominable. Loyal, blind, apparently subservient.” I said what I had to say on this subject last year, but tell me this: has he ever referred to, say, Yasser Arafat as “abominable”? And why, like so many on the left, does he persist in believing that Blair went along with Bush on Iraq out of “loyalty” or “subservience” as opposed to conviction? Before the Bush doctrine there was the Blair doctrine; before Iraq there was Afghanistan and before Afghanistan there was Kosovo. Face it — the guy’s an interventionist. And as any disgruntled Labour party member will tell you, he’s gotten next to nothing from Bush for his help after 9/11, including and especially on global warming. In which case, what incentive does he have to be subservient?

I think this is a simple case of the left simply not being able to tolerate the thought of a fellow enlightened leftist and/or European being pro-Iraq war, so they have to explain it away as a character defect that conveniently lays the blame at the Bushitler’s feet. Blair didn’t really want to get rid of Saddam, you see; Bush browbeat him into it using some mysterious form of coercion that has never quite been explained. (See also the constant denigrations of Hitchens as a drunk whose imbibing has rotted his brain.) The truth is, if there’s any loyalty on Blair’s part here, it’s loyalty to western values and the felt need to present a united front in the face of Islamist fascism. No surprise that Carter looks upon that contemptuously.

What continues to surprise us about a particular aspect of the left, which often and today includes Jimmy Carter, is the need to either find defeat among victory or to relive the past. For Jimmy Carter, the notion of Bush’s Middle East policy failing vindicates his own spinelessness when dealing with the same monsters years ago. Its clear that Jimmy’s policy made have been the original puzzle piece for them–teaching them the way to the Achille’s heel of the Western giant–but if George Bush’s strict line on war was not the answer, and eventually led to defeat, Carter no longer has to feel as though he made the wrong decision. He may live with impossible guilt, for all we know, or he may simply be delusional enough to believe that if we merely left them alone, they’d no longer desire to come to our shores and massacre our innocents by the thousands under the guise and excuse of a radical faith.

Compared to the widely-recognized worst presidents in history (Buchanan, Johnson, Pierce, Harding, and Harrison), the legacies of both Carter and Bush will vertainly leave them in the bottom ten.

We can thank Carter for making us look very weak on the international front kicking off our modern war with Islamofacists. Also, the Department of Education and other jewels of domestic incompetence like the energy crisis.

Bush, we can thank for the largest government in history, “free” prescription drugs for the elderly, open borders, and another energy crisis that will tank what is left of the Reagan boom economy. Also, like Carter, he seems incapable of defining who the enemy is in the war on terror.

Carter was quoted Saturday as saying “I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history.”

and

He said he wasn’t comparing the Bush administration with all those through American history.

Dude – pick up any decent Intro to Philosophy textbook and read about the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Once you know what the heck you’re talking about, then you can speak. Until then, follow Lincoln’s Dictum: “It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool, that to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

Not really, Bush is much stronger on the foreign front than Carter. Carter was blasting Bush on his foreign relations policy. The fact is, they are both bottom-tier presidents.

Bush has more character in his clipped toenail than Carter in his whole body. Bush is doing what he said he would do: Giving amnesty to millions of illegals and their families, federalizing the public schools, and giving away billions in prescription drugs.

Even when I was kid we all knew that Ca’tah sucked. We used to sing to the tune of “Oscar Meyer Weener”…

“Myyy ex-preisident has a first name, it’s J I M M Y,
My ex-president has a second name, it’s C A T E R,
Ooooh I’d hate to meet him any day, and if you ask me why I’ll saaay,
‘Cause Jimmy Ca’tah has a way of screwing up the U.S.Aaaaaaaa.”

Awww come on Jimmy. You’ve mouthed off one to many times about Bush and America. You and your sidekick Ramsey Clark are way overdue to be charged for TREASON. This is just one more reason you should be doing time in federal slammer!

Carter has fallen and he can’t get up no matter how hard he tries. He a man with a mission to, not only put lipstick on the pig of his presidency, but regale it with costume jewelry.

Since his presidency he has been a man in search of a legacy. He has done this by cavorting with the dregs of the world in the vain hope that people will see him as a ‘man for all seasons’. He, instead, has been humiliating himself and his country.

He, the country, and the world would have been better off if he, after his presidency, went home, shucked peanuts, and with his brother got high on Billy Beer.

I think this is a simple case of the left simply not being able to tolerate the thought of a fellow enlightened leftist and/or European being pro-Iraq war, so they have to explain it away as a character defect that conveniently lays the blame at the Bushitler’s feet.

posted at 9:53 am on May 21, 2007 by Allahpundit

Oh exactly, no doubt. Blair is always a fun topic to discuss with Liberals. It’s like that Star Trek episode where they overload the computer with the “Everything I say is a lie” “I am lying” trick. Their heads start to smoke. So it’s a survival tactic I think.

Most of the original post focuses on the foreign policy ramifications of the two administrations, but let’s not forget how absolutely abysmal the economy was under Jimmy Carter’s reign of error. High unemployment, high inflation, lousy stock market … it just sucked all around.

There’s plenty to criticize W. about, particularly as of late with his continued hard-on for amnesty, but Jimmuh the peanut farmer could only dream about having an economy as strong as it has been the last several years.

-Intervention in Afghanistan (USSR 1979): The Carter Doctrine, US would not allow any other outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf. Terminated the Russian Wheat Deal. This was the many of the first nails in the coffin of the cold war.

-Hostage crisis: Shah of Iran (installed by the US before Carter) was removed by the 1979 Iranian revolution, led by Ayatollah Khomeini. American Hostages taken. A failure to recognize the deterioration and the failed military mission, which Carter took full responsibility, where Bush dances around responsibility for everything and blames others. The event motivates Carter to increase the military and start a new division of the military CENTCOM.

-Rapid Deployment Forces – CENTCOM main command control for the fight on terror even today. Started by who? Carter a democrat. Carter is the one who started build up of the military that Reagan gets all the credit for.

-Economy and gas prices: Carter (1977-1981) inherited a pure steaming pile from Nixon and Ford, Vietnam War and Watergate. The years of republican rule had put us in “stagflation”. When the energy market exploded — an occurrence Carter desperately tried to avoid during his term. Carter is the one that came out with sweeping energy saving plans that we still enjoy today.

Carter was the first to recognize our need to get off of foreign oil. If Reagan would have continued Carters energy plans, we would NOT be dependant on mid east oil and we would not be in Iraq. He was visionary. Carter convinced and create the US Dept of Energy and put solar power in government buildings, including the White House, where he turned the thermostat down and wore sweaters in the winter. What does Bush really do all day?

Carter inherited the aftermath of the first OPEC gas embargo’s of 1973 and rapid rising gas prices right before taking office (sound familiar). The Iranian Revolution caused the second embargo in 1979 and long gas lines. I don’t think he can be blamed for that. Again Carter took action and was able to keep prices flat throughout his term. However the memory of waiting in long gas lines in 1979 by the american people, is one of the main reasons he is not ranked higher. If it was not for the hostages and oil embargo, which where not in his control. He might have won in 1982 or at least been remembered favorably.

IN 1979 WE HAD ALL THE SIGNS WE NEEDED TO GET OFF MID EAST OIL. REAGEN DID LITTLE TO NOTHING. CARTER DID MORE FOR SETTING THE GROUND WORK OF ENERGY INDEPENDENCE IN HIS LAST YEARS 2 YEARS IN OFFICE DID MORE THAN REAGAN IN 8 YEARS, BUT IT MEANT SACRIFICE, SOMETHING GEORGE W. BUSH DOES NOT DO OR KNOW HOW TO LEAD OTHERS TO DO, TO MAKE SACRIFICE, OTHER THAN THE MILITARY AND THEIR FAMILIES. His advice after 9/11? Go buy things.

We have less than 1% of the American people involved in Iraq. We are kidding our self. The hammer will fall and we will have to pay for it later.

I would NOT want to be the next President for all the money in the world because what a mess the state of the nation is in. It’s almost going to be a sacrificial presidency, like Carter was set-up, regardless who takes office it will likely be one term, a fall guy. To do the right thing will take immediate sacrifice, but ALL the idiots running are liars, cheats, crooks and scallywags, and the people are not willing to sacrifice, especially selfish, self centered conservatives like you all that cut down a great former Presidents, who has done more good than most Presidents in history.

A man of character, convictions and diplomacy is never irrelevant?

WHAT HAS BUSH DONE? Please

I love the conservatives whine, cry and throw temper tantrums about the “Hate Bush Crowd”, while just a mention of Carter or Clinton makes you all go crazy like rabid weasels foaming at the mouth.

You don’t know what you are talking about. President Carter was right the first time, Bush is terrible and the worst in (modern) history. The historians and political science folks have rated presidents which are widely available. Lincoln, FDR, George Washington, Jefferson and Roosevelt often make the top of the list.

Tightly packed in middle (mediocrocy) of the 43 presidents, in order, is: Clinton ranked at #21, followed by G. W. Bush at #22, followed by G H Bush and Carter & Ford, who are tied at #27.

THE WORST, unanimously by both conservative and liberal scholars is Harding the 29th president. Grant, Nixon, Andrew Jackson and Buchanan round out the bottom.

So Carter is technically wrong; right now Gee-Dub is around in the middle of the pack with a bullet to the bottom, worst President in history. I don’t think Gee-Dub will ever beat Harding for the worst, but we have hope Bush will be successful at something, even if its being “victorious” at being the worst. I think history will put him in the bottom 10.

Yeah, boyo good ol Jimmy. Bush ain’t done nothin but get rid of two dictatorships. Helluva lot worse than helping install one in Iran.

You all whine and cry about how the “world” doesn’t like us and President Bush is to blame. NB: this world of which you speak is made up of those who love evil and commit evil acts against their own people each day. Who wants to be praised by them?! Only those others who love the darkness.

I had a small business when Carter was president.
I borrowed money at 21%. Inflation was 13%.
He invaded Iran with 4 choppers and it was a disaster.
Should anyone need advice on how to handle muslims, better not ask Carter.

He has repeatedly made agreements for which ther other side never followed.

Yeah, boyo good ol Jimmy. Bush ain’t done nothin but get rid of two dictatorships. Helluva lot worse than helping install one in Iran.

You all whine and cry about how the “world” doesn’t like us and President Bush is to blame. NB: this world of which you speak is made up of those who love evil and commit evil acts against their own people each day. Who wants to be praised by them?! Only those others who love the darkness.

Bush browbeat him into it using some mysterious form of coercion that has never quite been explained. (See also the constant denigrations of Hitchens as a drunk whose imbibing has rotted his brain.)

Excellent analysis on Bush and especially on the Blair topic. This man goes in history as an absolute strongly backboned liberal, who worked for good with the one they despise the most. Would this have been a Gore/Blair alliance, with similar (assumed) actions after 9/11/01, Mr. Blair would be hailed a superhero by same factions, media included.

On Mr. Hitchens’ drinking/smoking – were he a Kennedy or other leftie, he’d go to rehab and be praised, after long dissertations on how ‘afflicting’ drinking/smoking is, and how the ‘victim’ can’t control it, bla, bla, bla…And Mr. Hitchens w/b hailed a superintelligent hero too.

amerpundit, thank you. Rates then were at times 17%, having gone up from 7 3/4 almost daily, lines at gas stations were around the block, driving in some place on odd days considered…in addition to others’ items listed, above.

gmcjetpilot (real pilots indignant again) – you provided numerous smirks. How you can make a hero out of nothing is truly miraculous. Should consider patenting indeas. Maybe someone will buy…

The Princess has it right. This truly bad president is seeking relevance where there isn’t any. The response, for an otherwise inept communications admin. was perfect. “increasingly irrelevant” was perfect. And it hit the spot. And for Carter, like many other unaccountable lefties to blame “or misunderstood”. It’s either a “joke” or “misunderstood”, which always blames others. Grow some stones, lillies! Own what you do and say, then try to make yourself better and more plausible.

Carter is doing more, though, besides trying to embelish his insignificant record. The hatred of Gore losing to this “nitwit walking/talking Texan”, by electoral votes drove the Left insane. Then, as if to prove that Mr. Bush’s god exists, came 9/11/01 and handed him a raison d’être to preside, legitimately, in a time when the worst attack on this wonderous country occurred in history. The rest we know. What was mild derangement became a complete mass neurosis. Mr. Carter is trying to point that out, and by doing so hoping to raise his zero-status, using the anti-American sentiment around the world, the BBC and our lefties as platforms.